[throwaway_dang]

I doubt you can find any essay or such where he said anti-Western action was good on the sole grounds that it was anti-Western.

It's difficult to summarise so many years of writing in a few sentences but from my own reading, he pointed out

a) many things done by the US lead to death or destruction b) many of these things are justified in the name of good that doesn't stand up to scrutiny c) the US government is often hypocritical d) US citizens are heavily propagandized both for foreign policy and domestic policy e) as a US citizen, it his duty to try and oppose these actions and since he's not a citizen of Iran, he isn't in a position to do anything about Iran f) a) through d) explain why he is often seen as an apologist, to use your word, for Iran; he tries to explain, from his point of view, why Iran etc. do the things they do g) a strong support of freedom of speech and opposition to censorship, including what he regards as private censorship as opposed to merely government censorship.

[breppp]

That doesn't explain why he visited Hezbollah and showed overwhelming support, probably aware of the organization roots and past actions such as kidnapping journalists or killing politicians or its self professed goal of creating a theocracy in Lebanon.

He of course has very complex rationalizing but essentially he assumes the opposite of mainstream western opinion and then tries to build ideological structures upon that.

That creates a very simplified version of reality wrapped in a nice intellectual wrapping

[throwaway_dang]

Chomsky had been involved in linguistics and politics since the 60s, which is nearly six decades covering a multitude of events and issues. To simplify his work down to even a paragraph is an impossible task, let alone as you have done as simply saying "anti Western".

For example, during the 2003 US invasion of Iraq, Germany and France were opposed to the invasion, leading to "Freedom Fries" to insult French opposition to the war. The British public was also opposed to the war, although the the Blair government went along with it anyway. Australia had a similar position - public opposition but government went along with it anyway. Canada official refused entry into the Iraq war. Chomsky was also opposed to the Iraq war. Does this mean that France, Germany, Canada and the British and Australian general public are "anti-Western"? Since Chomsky agreed with these countries, does that make him anti-Western or pro-Western? Does it make the US anti-Western since they proceeded with a war despite formal or popular opposition in many Western countries?

I fear you have a certain definition of the "Western" that simply excludes Western opinions that don't fit your understanding.

As to who Chomsky met him; well as part of this Epstein story, Chomsky met with former Israeli prime minister Ehud Barak. In your opinion, does this make him anti-Western? Indeed, prior to his stroke Chomsky explained that this kind of meeting is why Chomsky associated with Epstein - for the contacts.

I suspect Chomsky is just generally interested in understanding an issues and not bothered by what it's seen as, seemingly to his detriment in this Epstein story.